I hope you'd take a moment to think about whether you really believe the "You get what you pay for" is a rational adage. I, for one, think it's a lazy rule of thumb.

Is it possible that the Neumann microphones are just good quality microphones, just like many others from Rode, Oktava, AKG etc, and the only real difference is that they have a big name and reputation and so they charge a lot more for their products, hoping (correctly) that the buyers will be impressed by the high price and think they are getting a superior value for their investment?

Having a basic understanding of human nature and knowing how business and marketing usually work, I expect this to be the case. If this perspective is skewed, then I'd really want to know why so I can learn something new.

Yes your perspective is skewed and if you "really want to know why and learn then :

Perhaps you might take a minute to ponder why an adage becomes an adage.(you might also take a moment to look up the actual definition)
You really (honestly ) believe this became an adage, yet it is not generally true and reasonable ??

If you do, then you should take a minute and introspectively consider what is actually going on . You would likely find (if you are actually able to honest with yourself) you are emotionally attached to the notion that you do not wish it to true in this case. Thus you have concocted the idea it is "a lazy rule of thumb" Which allows you the ignore the the fact that yes in reality , it is a perfectly reasonable and generally true adage. And more than likely applies in this case also.

You might also stop and consider how arrogant and misinformed your assumption is that buyers of Neumann mics do so merely because of slick marketing based reputation. And speaking of reputation perhaps your not old enough, or are old enough but simply lack the audio experience to know how Neumann actually got the reputation they have in the first place .
If you were actually knowledgeable in the history of Neumann you would realize it's reputation was not from marketing. Because in point of fact the marketing came out of (and after) the reputation.... not the other way around that you appear to have deluded yourself into believing .

Are you really so self delusional as to believe that all of the highly successful engineers, artists, and producers that choose to use a Neumann are doing so because they have fallen prey to slick marketing ? And that they should instead , heed the omnipotent words of Vesta, and just use a Rhodes with an EQ dip.
Really ???? You actually believe this nonsense ? If so then trust me , it is not I , that desperately needs to stop and re think. Perhaps your attachment to your self anointed "knowledge" of marketing, human nature and audio ... is simply indicative of that level of experience that is beyond that of a beginner but still falls into the category of "knowing just enough to be dangerous to themselves" and prevents your having the understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, as to why high end gear actually has the "reputation" it does, and why it is used by those who do .

To go another way: I could open a tuna can with a hammer if I needed to. But why would I do things the hard way (Monitor a track that doesn't sound how I want and make decisions based on that, while also correcting later for EQ and any other possible issues ("I didn't notice the bass was lacking on some notes because I put it down to the brightness") I have made making incorrect judgements on the way?

Just use a better mic on a similar pricepoint. There's plenty. Obsessing about turning your hammer into a can opener isn't productive.

Thanks for making my point. That's exactly what I'm saying. If what you'd like to argue for is the brand name and bragging rights, then fine. I just want you to make that clear, and we won't have to debate.

I didn't make your point at all, my post just went over your head.

The fact that no one can tell what mic, or what guitar, or what preamp or what converter was used when they hear something on radio has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of the more expensive versions of each, either.

The fact that no one can tell what mic, or what guitar, or what preamp or what converter was used when they hear something on radio has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of the more expensive versions of each, either.

Best of luck with the Timex there .

It maybe a case of another old yet profound adage .
"Only when the student is ready, does the teacher appear"
Or perhaps this one
"You can bring the horse to water, but you can't make them drink"

KevWind, I'll choose to not respond to personal attacks. I think the readers of this thread will be better served if we remained on topic, if we're going to continue.

If I understand you correctly in your post above, you're pointing out to the popularity of Neumann mics among professionals as proof of them being worth their high monetary value.

It might be a supporting idea to help you build up a case, but that can't be a real argument. You can't appeal to popularity when you're discussing the value of a product. And you don't appeal to authority by bringing up the fact that "highly successful engineers, artists, and producers" are using that.

Whether the high prices and reputation came first or were a result of existing reputation is rather irrelevant in light of blind tests which place the mic in questions in the company of $300-500 microphones produced by other manufacturers.

Next, you're implying that my posts are an insult to the many great engineers who use Neumann mics and value them highly. Would it be insulting to the many women, for example, if I pointed out that buying Luis Vuitton handbags doesn't get them much more than a fancy brand name? Are they all falling prey to slick marketing? Well, let's ask one of them about how exactly her $10.000 bag betters a cheaper high-quality bag you could get in the mall. I'm guessing we'll hear similar arguments...

There may be a great feature of u87 that I don't know about which justifies its high price. Unless someone can open my eyes to that, I am left with its performance as I can audition in a test and the build quality, which I doubt is any better than that of the NT1-A, for example. The onus is on the Neumann fans to prove why it's such a special microphone deserving a special budget.

This seems to me to be an entirely rational position and I find it curious as to why it's creating such a controversy on these pages.

Comparing two mics on one singer means next to nothing. All that means is that for that singer on that day in that studio for that song they sound similar. That's it. I have worked with singers that make a SM57 sound like a U47 because the singer has amazingly even resonance, placement and volume control. I just worked on a record with a singer where it was hard to choose a mic cause anything I put in front of her sounded amazing. Maybe for the singer in the video a NT1-A is just fine.

I own U87s and for a time had NT1-As. The NT1-A was one of the most finicky mics I've ever used, you had to place it "just right" to get it to work and then there were always issues in mixing like harsh highs that pop out on acoustic guitars, crash cymbals and sibilence that rip your head off etc... Sometimes ( and I stress SOMETIMES) I could get it to sound good enough on something, even occasionally great, before opting for another mic. When the creative juices are flowing in the studio, the last thing I want is to have to futz with a mic for 20 minutes. Eventually I stopped using them alogether because I just dreaded it or I just didn't have time for it.

A U87 you can throw up on anything quickly and it's pretty good and very trouble-free at mixdown. The U87, you can put it up on anything anywhere and it works and gives you a very usable track ... sounds warm with EVEN high end on toms, guitar amps, vocals, room mics. The eveness between lows and highs on the U87 is amazing.

Added note: I did however tend to have more luck with the Rodes mics on the old Ampex tube mic pres because they tended to tame and even out the high end.

Thanks, Bill. You've put some new things on the table that have got me thinking. I hate the harshness on the NT1-A myself, but I've noticed that it's nothing a little eq won't fix. On some voices, I felt I couldn't get enough of those NT1-A highs and it fit the mix so perfectly. I've also worked with several u87 tracks where I applied generous presence boost... Had they been recorded with the Rode, I would hardly feel the need to do that. So, this isn't really about some intrinsic quality; they're just two different characters.

It depends on material. As I've written, I'm from Poland and we have many harsh sounds and sibilants - cheap mikes just do not work.

It's not about cheap mics not working... It's about mics with forward treble not working. There are mics that are warm and sweet and would be perfect for your application, and still around price of the Rode and even less. You could get a $125 ribbon like Cascade Fathead and have nothing left of those Polish sibilant sounds.

It's not about cheap mics not working... It's about mics with forward treble not working. There are mics that are warm and sweet and would be perfect for your application, and still around price of the Rode and even less. You could get a $125 ribbon like Cascade Fathead and have nothing left of those Polish sibilant sounds.

Not all cheap mics are like that - Oktava for example, from our region of world
I don't want dark mic, I want bright mic which does not distort sibilants. Rode does distort, Neumann does not, for example. AKG 414 (different versions of course) is very bright, I don't like it on vocals (ok, transformer version can be ), but it does not distort.
I'm talking about heavy processed vo track, specific situation, and some may say that I am exaggerating, but this is the real world - when recording with no processing both mics can sound similiar, almost indistinguishable, but processing shows that there are severe differences.

You need to hear both mics in an finished song, mixed and mastered.
Then you hear the difference, how much better the neumann sounds.
Even the producing,mixing,mastering TIME would be faster with the neumann. And EASIER.
With the nt1 you struggle into more problems during mixing (thickening, take off sibilance,etc.etc.)

Please no more analogies using handbags and watches.
Technology has advanced, yes. And some cheaper mics are really good now. But as long as Neumann maintains the quality level the audio world is accustomed to, the brand will, justifiably, demand the higher price. Shootouts seem a little obtuse here. Probably the only way to truly have a preference is to work with one of each for a year, under all the varying circumstances of a busy studio. At the end of that year, I think probably a U87 will be preferred over an NT1.

KevWind, I'll choose to not respond to personal attacks. I think the readers of this thread will be better served if we remained on topic, if we're going to continue.

Good Idea, so stop implying people choose to pay more for Neumann mic's simply because they are succumbing to slick marketing or reputation . Which is in fact by implication a personal attack on their their ability to discern real value from hype. And lets be clear it was you who started with the innuendo and implying that those who disagreed with your position were being emotional, not rational, succumbing to marketing, etc.etc.etc. which is in fact simply a dishonest method of personal attack. I was simply being honest and directing my attack so again if you wish it to stop, try stopping your tactics.

Quote:

If I understand you correctly in your post above, you're pointing out to the popularity of Neumann mics among professionals as proof of them being worth their high monetary value.

No apparently you do not understand. I was asking you a question and it was not rhetorical . Do you really believe they do so merely because of slick marketing?

Quote:

It might be a supporting idea to help you build up a case, but that can't be a real argument. You can't appeal to popularity when you're discussing the value of a product. And you don't appeal to authority by bringing up the fact that "highly successful engineers, artists, and producers" are using that.

A straw man argument does not validate your position. , And you have it backwards , you are trying to build a case . I was asking you a question about what you believed was the reason those people used Neumann . I was not appealing to anything.

Quote:

Whether the high prices and reputation came first or were a result of existing reputation is rather irrelevant in light of blind tests which place the mic in questions in the company of $300-500 microphones produced by other manufacturers.

Of course the fact that the reputation came first is relevant. It contradicts your assertion that reputation came from the marketing which is factually mistaken.You keep claiming such tests exist but in the only one you have provided the 87 was clearly superior.

Quote:

Next, you're implying that my posts are an insult to the many great engineers who use Neumann mics and value them highly.

Yes your assertion that the mics are purchased simply because of marketing is in fact insulting.

Quote:

Would it be insulting to the many women, for example, if I pointed out that buying Luis Vuitton handbags doesn't get them much more than a fancy brand name? Are they all falling prey to slick marketing? Well, let's ask one of them about how exactly her $10.000 bag betters a cheaper high-quality bag you could get in the mall. I'm guessing we'll hear similar arguments...

This could not be a more of a specious yet ludicrous argument, the two situations are not remotely analogous.

Quote:

There may be a great feature of u87 that I don't know about which justifies its high price. Unless someone can open my eyes to that, I am left with its performance as I can audition in a test and the build quality, which I doubt is any better than that of the NT1-A, for example. The onus is on the Neumann fans to prove why it's such a special microphone deserving a special budget.

The feature is in sound and yes you should audition it . Doubting is not knowing and there is no "Onus" on people who choose a Neumann, this subject is not a debate about the burden of proof. You have made claims yet the only proof you offered disproves your claim.

Quote:

This seems to me to be an entirely rational position and I find it curious as to why it's creating such a controversy on these pages.

Perhaps to you it seems rational . Here is another question do think it is rational to believe that given the amount posts that run counter to your assertions . That all those people are mistaken and you are correct?

Oh jeezumuss . . .
Your grandma leaves you $10,000 and stipulates you are to spend it on a microphone. And you choose the NT1. Seriously? You are so going to buy the Neumann, and I rest my case. Done. Out. Fergawdsakes, this is GEARslutz.

this is the high end forum. if people really do not hear the difference between a rode and a u87 they might wann hang out elswhere with all due respect. or upgrade their monitoring - or gather more experience. i know the rode well and it sucks moneky balls. a u87 is certainly not my favourite mic but its solid always. a totally different legaue.

I hope you'd take a moment to think about whether you really believe the "You get what you pay for" is a rational adage. I, for one, think it's a lazy rule of thumb.

Is it possible that the Neumann microphones are just good quality microphones, just like many others from Rode, Oktava, AKG etc, and the only real difference is that they have a big name and reputation and so they charge a lot more for their products, hoping (correctly) that the buyers will be impressed by the high price and think they are getting a superior value for their investment?

Having a basic understanding of human nature and knowing how business and marketing usually work, I expect this to be the case. If this perspective is skewed, then I'd really want to know why so I can learn something new.

Basically, Neumann (like many other high-end makers) have a excellent R&D and engineering departments, so their mics have gone through many tests and tuning before being commercially released. Things like grille and head basket resonances, damping have been very carefully set. The same goes for capsule manufacturing and design, etc... So, from an objective point of view, their microphones are as close as possible to what was intended by the designers. Unintended resonances are minimised, etc.. I have not used the U87, but I have a couple of KM84 microphones and some of their features would be difficult to achieve without very clever design and precise engineering - for instance, off-axis sound sources are lower in volume but are hardly coloured, which is great in some circumstances..

However (and this is where you are right), that does not mean that their microphones are the best (or better than a Rode NT1, as you said) for every single application. Although according to some design criteria they are objectively superior, that does not mean that they are always subjectively superior (and music is subjective). As you say, the presence peak of a RODE NT1 might be ideal for some sources. And the (hypothetical but very likely) superior acoustic performance of the U87 may not add much in some cases.

So I sort of agree with both. Neumann mics are really great, but in some cases a RODE NT1 will outperform them. And you can make great recordings with either if you understand their specific virtues and shortcomings....

KevWind, the way I pursue truth and understanding is not by examining a poll of opinions. I take each argument on its own merit. I expect you to think this is poor taste, but I'll have to proceed with this style of inquiry.

Santiago and Bill Simpkins, for example, have a put a few arguments which I've gladly considered and it's widened my understanding of the subject matter. With this, I can take a step towards your position (in u87 "Unintended resonances are minimized", "off-axis sound sources are lower in volume but are not colored", there is "evenness between lows and highs" etc) even though the final conclusion can only be reached through a well-conducted blind test. The blind tests I've seen (all informal), didn't help make the case that the Neumann mic is superior. Even the test posted by OP, which is the most unflattering for the NT1-A I've ever come across, does not do that. I clearly prefer the Neumann in this example, but I wonder if I could still hold that preference if a simple high-frequency-cut preset was dropped on the NT1-A file.

Now, to answer your question directly - yes, it would be nothing shocking that all the great engineers preferring the Neumann have mistaken a brand name for superior quality. I do not doubt for a moment that if a $300 Rode, AKG or Oktava mic was produced by Neumann as a new $50.000 flagship ldc, many highly respected producers would buy it and praise it for its incredible realism, presence, punch and whatever.

Humans, for the most part, are not rational. We have blinds spots, we get influenced by power, prestige and we have strong confirmation biases.

KevWind, the way I pursue truth and understanding is not by examining a poll of opinions. I take each argument on its own merit. I expect you to think this is poor taste, but I'll have to proceed with this style of inquiry.

Where do you get this stuff ? There was no opinion poll mentioned referenced or implied in my post. This is merely a regurgitation of your fallacious "appeal to authority " strawman tactic, And no arguing something that wasn't said is not poor taste. It is however a classic a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Now, to answer your question directly - yes, it would be nothing shocking that all the great engineers preferring the Neumann have mistaken a brand name for superior quality. I do not doubt for a moment that if a $300 Rode, AKG or Oktava mic was produced by Neumann as a new $50.000 flagship ldc, many highly respected producers would buy it and praise it for its incredible realism, presence, punch and whatever.

Thanks for answering something I actually asked and it pretty much say's it all .

Quote:

Humans, for the most part, are not rational. We have blinds spots, we get influenced by power, prestige and we have strong confirmation biases.

You forgot to include " or by what we wish to be the case "

I'm guessing you do not see yourself as part of "the most part" and do not see the reflection in the mirror, either I think I can do no more for you. Carry on

but I wonder if I could still hold that preference if a simple high-frequency-cut preset was dropped on the NT1-A file.

Pleeeeease... "Harshness" is not only frequency curve and cannot be fully "undone" by applying another frequency curve. Harshness means also nonlinear distortion in higher frequencies and cannot be cured with linear eq. If something is bright or dull. you can make it duller or brighter with the eq. But when something is distorted, it's distorted.

Now, to answer your question directly - yes, it would be nothing shocking that all the great engineers preferring the Neumann have mistaken a brand name for superior quality. I do not doubt for a moment that if a $300 Rode, AKG or Oktava mic was produced by Neumann as a new $50.000 flagship ldc, many highly respected producers would buy it and praise it for its incredible realism, presence, punch and whatever.

Humans, for the most part, are not rational. We have blinds spots, we get influenced by power, prestige and we have strong confirmation biases.

just give it a brake. you obviously have not worked with the mics you are discrediting here. you also seem to have no idea about neumanns historical importance or the science they created and still do.
this is a place for people who work with the gear - not read about it. not dream about it or being pissed off since they cant afford it. its the high end. get a u87, use it for a year and then come back and complain if it did you wrong.

just give it a brake. you obviously have not worked with the mics you are discrediting here. you also seem to have no idea about neumanns historical importance or the science they created and still do.
this is a place for people who work with the gear - not read about it. not dream about it or being pissed off since they cant afford it. its the high end. get a u87, use it for a year and then come back and complain if it did you wrong.

So you're reading beyond the lines of my posts and the conclusion you make is that I am either dreaming about a Neumann mic or pissed off that I can't afford it?

when i buy a mic i never listen to singing samples. i listen to spoken word samples where they are very dynamic in how they are talking. ive owned 3 rode nt1a and 1 nt1000. they are by far some of the crappiest voice over mics ive ever used in my life. rode is a trash company. audio techncia 40 series is lightyears better. im sorry but only a moron would think a nt1a is good.

im someone who listens to my own voice and records it for hours a day. the rode mics are virtually unusable for voice over. that doesnt stop a ton of people from using the nt1a tho. they are all fools who dont know any better to be quite honest. i know of many people who own studios and do gigs and dont know crap about sound quality so it doesnt surprise me crappy mics slip under the radar and are regularly used. with that said, using a nt1a for singing with effects and eq can work. i literally forgot how to eq and had depression episodes when dealing with rode mics.

im guilty of coming on to this forum and recommending rode mics in the past. i was a fool. dont be a fool.

Now, to answer your question directly - yes, it would be nothing shocking that all the great engineers preferring the Neumann have mistaken a brand name for superior quality. I do not doubt for a moment that if a $300 Rode, AKG or Oktava mic was produced by Neumann as a new $50.000 flagship ldc, many highly respected producers would buy it and praise it for its incredible realism, presence, punch and whatever.

Humans, for the most part, are not rational. We have blinds spots, we get influenced by power, prestige and we have strong confirmation biases.

Sorry but that's a pretty blasé way to stereotype "all the great engineers preferring the Neumann"
Have you spent any time with the "great engineers"?
Were you there when Michael Jackson was put on an sm7 while there were Neumann 47s in the mic locker?
Or when Bono, or Jagger or de la Rocha were put on shure sm57s instead of the nearby Neumann?
Or perhaps when Thom Yorke was put on the EV320 instead of the nearby U47?

Point being, the great engineers use what works and plenty of the best audio tricks involve budget equipment. That being said, these "great engineers" reach for the U87 exponentially more often than the Rode Nt1. The u87 has a far far far better resume on recordings for a reason. (For the record, I'm not a big fan of the 87 either, but it does its job well)

Also I would guess that the shure sm57 may have an even better resume than the 87 btw.

1 other note, I don't think that too many of us (in the working pro world or "great engineers" as I think you refer to them as) think of the u87 as a particularly high end mic. For sure it isn't anything that will turn my head when I'm looking into a mic locker

Pleeeeease... "Harshness" is not only frequency curve and cannot be fully "undone" by applying another frequency curve. Harshness means also nonlinear distortion in higher frequencies and cannot be cured with linear eq. If something is bright or dull. you can make it duller or brighter with the eq. But when something is distorted, it's distorted.

I hate having to repeat it, my friend, but there was a thread here not long ago where nobody could hear the distortion you're talking about in a blind test (myself included) and people mistakenly believed a cheaper $300 mic (as bright as the Rode when stock) was the u87, presumably because its treble peak was reduced by a very simple eq dip. Nobody said "Mic B has too much distortion to be the u87."

I hate having to repeat it, my friend, but there was a thread here not long ago where nobody could hear the distortion you're talking about in a blind test (myself included) and people mistakenly believed a cheaper $300 mic (as bright as the Rode when stock) was the u87, presumably because its treble peak was reduced by a very simple eq dip. Nobody said "B has too much distortion to be the u87."

maybe random people off the internet have no proper monitoring environment and a lack the experience? maybe no pro will comment in a thread like that since they have learned that internet shooutouts are total bs in any case? maybe they wont comment because they have absolutely no interest in the rode and know the u87 just too well? to sum it up:
maybe, there is just a bunch of amateurs judging these "shootouts". ok now im finally out